Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 04/08/1999PROPERTY OF ' FORT W.2" uTwTus j,.naZJvjS0 Repo airp hIOV16M8 ' Addendum to the Final Drainage and Project Development Report Harmony Technology Park, First Filing Fort Collins, Colorado November, 1998 I I 1 AWL THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP Standards in Excellence II r I I I n [i I ,r n THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP FULL -SERVICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS FORMERLY RBD, INC. 209 SOUTH MELDRUM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521-2603 970-482-5922 FAX:970-482-6368 November 13, 1998 Mr. Basil Hamden City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Subject: Addendum to the Final Drainage and Project Development Report for the Harmony Technology Park PUD, First Filing Dear Basil: We are pleased to resubmit to you, for your review and approval, this addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for the Harmony Technology Park PUD, First Filing. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, The Sear -Brown Group Prepared By: Traci Downs, E.I.T Design Engineer Cc: File 737-008A Reviewed By: David K.Thaemert, P.E. Water Resource Engineer NEW YORK • PENNSYLVANIA COLORADO•UTAH STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION: PAGE I.' NARRATIVE 1 H. APPENDIX A. HYDROLOGY 1 B. INLETS 7 C. STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 11 D. DESIGN OF RIPRAP & SWALES 28 E. STREET CAPACITIES 39 F. CHARTS, TABLES, & FIGURES 47 G. EROSION CONTROL 52 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REPORT FOR THE HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK PUD, FIRST FILING FORT COLLINS, COLORADO This addendum pertains to the Harmony Road improvements associated with The Final Drainage and Project Development Report For The Harmony Technology Park PUD, First Filing by The Sear -Brown Group, dated January 23, 1998. These improvements include expanding the lanes and modifying the existing median. The section of Harmony Road that is being redesigned is located north of the Celestica Inc. project and between cross -streets County Road 9 and Cambridge Road. The scope of this addendum is to analyze the stormwater conveyance towards the proposed central median and design an appropriate storm sewer system. Please refer to the Drainage and Erosion Control Sheets at the back of this report. The Rational Method for determining surface runoff was used for the project site. The 10-year and 100-year City of Fort Collins storm event criteria were used in calculating the runoff values; however, the 10-year event was used to design the storm sewer system. During the 100-year event, the -excess flow will travel via curb and gutter to the swale at the east end of the project and eventually will outlet into the Fossil CreekReservoir Inlet Ditch. The 100-year developed flow is not anticipated to overtop the crown of Harmony Road, however, in the event that flows reach the crown of the road, it will sheet flow across the road and into the swales located to the north and south of Harmony Road. Due to the configuration of the road, there will always be over twelve (12) feet of open road not inundated by stormwater runoff. Please refer to the calculations and exhibits in the appendix of this report. A portion of the sheet flow off of Harmony Road (Basins OS-1 and OS-4) flows off site to the irrigation lateral along Harmony, north of the Hewlett Packard and Celestica sites as it has historically. The developed flow of these basins has been analyzed and accounted for in the Final Drainage and Project Development Report For The Harmony Technology Park PUD, First Filing. Basin OS-1 developed flows will drain into an off - site area inlet, and Basin OS-4 developed flows will be conveyed into the off -site Pond B. Please refer to Basins OS-1 and OS-4 in the Harmony Technology Park PUD, First Filing Drainage Report. East of Technology Parkway, a portion of the storm drainage flowing off of Harmony Road will drain to the proposed swale located south of Harmony Road. The swale has the capacity to convey the 10 and 100-year developed flows from Basin 7. The swale will convey the runoff east, towards Cambridge Road, where it will enter a proposed stormdrain pipe via a flared end section. The pipe is designed to convey the 10-year developed flows under Cambridge Road and outlet on the east side of the road, where it will flow overland as it has historically. The 100-year developed flow will sheet flow across Cambridge Road, as it has historically. Due to the widening of Harmony Road and in order to separate the stormwater runoff off of Harmony Road from the irrigation water, the irrigation ditch, which previously ran adjacent to Harmony Road, was relocated with this project. The irrigation ditch is now located just south of the proposed storm drainage swale and is separated from the swale by a two -foot wide berm. Cross Section—B, on the Drainage Plan, shows the irrigation ditch and the drainage swale configuration: The irrigation ditch was designed to carry six (6) CFS, and has a two (2) foot bottom width, 2.5:1 side slopes, and a longitudinal slope of 0.8%. The ditch conveys flows east towards Cambridge Road, where it is intercepted by a proposed 24" RCP with flared end section. The proposed 24" RCP is tied into the existing 24" irrigation pipe with a proposed manhole. The existing pipe conveys the irrigation flows east, under Cambridge Road and into the diversion structure on the west side of the road. This development lies within the moderate rainfall erodibility zone and the moderate wind erodibility zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. The Erosion Control Performance Standard (PS) during construction for this project was computed to be 77.5 per the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for construction sites. The effectiveness (EFF) of the proposed erosion control plan was calculated to be 77.32, which is slightly under the Performance Standard. With the application of the straw bales in the swales, the proposed erosion control plan is an effective plan, which is consistent with the intent of the City's erosion control program. A copy of the calculations is included in the Erosion Control section of the Appendix. Specifically, the proposed Harmony Road will have a central median that runs from County Road 9 to Technology Parkway. Just past Technology Parkway the median transitions into the existing swale. A portion of the sheet flow off of Harmony Road will be conveyed into the north and south flow lines of the median. The 10-year event flows will be intercepted by three Type `R' inlets and will be conveyed through the proposed storm drain system which outlets into the existing swale east of Technology Parkway. A portion of the Swale located above the proposed elliptical pipe will be regraded in order to convey the flows, which are not intercepted by the inlets, into the existing swale. Runoff from a portion of the south side Harmony Road will drain to the proposed drainage swale south of Harmony Road and runoff will be conveyed east to the proposed storm sewer system that conveys the flows under Cambridge Road. Also, the irrigation ditch that is currently located.south of Harmony road will be relocated south of the proposed storm drainage swale. A variance is being sought for the minimum slope of the proposed storm sewer pipe under Cambridge Road. Due to the flat grade across Cambridge Road and at the outlet of the pipe, a minimum slope of 0.3% is being requested for the outlet pipe. The velocity shown on the UDSEWER results for this section is within the Fort Collins standards. All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria and are included in the appendix. 2 I:I» 01►111►:/ I 1 1 I 1 I 7 1 r I I I 1 1 I HYDROLOGY I ' RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants 1 1 L I 1 Weighted Runoff Coefficients Project # 737-008 HARMONY ROAD AND MEDIAN REDESIGN "BLACKFOX" This sheet calculates the composite "C" values for the Rational Method. sheet 1 of 2 TLD 11 /03/98 Design Area Impervious licit Flervious licit A,total (ac.) A,imp (ac.) A,perv. (ac.) o Imp opery comp. licit 1 0.95 0.25 0.48 0.48 0.00 100% 0% 0.95 2 0.95 0.25 1.20 0.93 0.27 78% 23% 0.79 31 0.95 0.25 0.63 0.631 0.00 100% 0%1 0.95 4 0.95 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.00 100% 0% 0.95 5 0.95 0.25 0.30 0.26 0.04 87% 13% 0.86 6 0.95 0.25 0.37 0.23 0.14 62% 38% 0.69 7 0.95 0.25 1.76 0.97 0.79 55% 45% 0.64 OS-1 ***** This basin is equivalent to OS-1 on the Harmony Technology Parkway, 1 st Filing Plans OS-4 ***** This basin is equivalent to OS-4 on the Harmony Technology Parkway, 1 st Filing Plans - Propse 0.95 0.251 4.891 3.651 1.241 1 0.77 11Site ISite - Existing 0.95 0.251 4.891 2.81 2.091 1 0.65 Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria rn 0 O 11 U O 1— Z U O r rn Z � a O 0 LL O W LU O Q U o z U W 0 W W' Z Q W Z Q Q m Z O W U co Z > 0 J C? J m W' � S U � U Y � N r W OCOqq:OMMr J .-• COOOOOOO N Z E W .. 0 r w E } M O r O O r N O f� 0 0 0 0 M U co r r N N r r U O W J 2 W H J w W O O O O O o M y N M W Orr01,- c c as Q0 � �, m LL LL ca 000000o�m = CDOI-rrNO Y Y NCOOOrrNN r cc Z ~ d d W J Ta 0 0 c c ^ N r r NC Y) t t w 0 Or- E E 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0=_ Jd^ a. NNC r CNN J w W U c c 0 0 0= 0000000 I `r O r CO NNMO CO CO ~ r r r 00 L r Z 0 Z _ W J m m O W OOCOO� .c m I-m 0 w CO Co c U M o00000o 41 N c c M m qctNCOrMC`')f- N O Q W U N O r 0 0 0 0 r F- • a 0 f a f' f Z U M U r Q r U rNMVOCOh00 3 T t9 (D cn a> co cN`o O U' LrI Cc 11 C 0 U 0 CU J > 06 � CD O >, ^^� � LL II C J ca L Cp U ci Q co L m 0a co II 1� Q ca E 7 O U 0 Z „ I I I I I I @ I @ I §§ / § §§ « 0§ - - \ �0 ]§�~ §» !!� ■!� ___ 0 |/ �. | ![■-■§,!! B ! § U [!, ;| , rzl� | | | loz^ 02 ��..�.�!§ \ \ t | , R L) N I I U O aNN Z coo UJJ V o rn r CO Z Or N CU LL O W Lu 0 W ly- 0 CW G Z J � a a m Z, w W 00 Z Q J ti u 2 U � U) Y < N r W N0000000� a Cr CO 00 00 In lr7 In 00 r Z w r LL f�Mrl- MMON ^ C O 4 06 r- o O r In r J } M O r O O r N U N r r r N N r r m W LU H J W O O O O O O M W CL MOOOrr01� N N 0 00 OOrrrrO f6 N � J a a U) CT Cn c c Icu � aaaaaa� N " cu cc ~^ NOOM NN Y r Z v Q. Q. J rn m 0 0 r Orrr N CM c c W C +_'� t0 >1 >1 H 0 0 E LLB Z O O O O O U') L o O O m 2 goo � L NCV CV rrNCV t L J " ;C/) 00 0= 0000000 (n U) F- O r CD N N M l o O O a ^ r r r O O H Z Z W aci y _ J LoOCf)U-)COm't > > MI�mm000OCD v c U c) o00000o y N c C OOOM�Or�(O N C O r M M l a a^ W Uco N t t Or6000r I- 0 a Z k Y � m mcn r �q W cl fn01 rNMtmcor-- OO m 5 I I I I I I I I I \n � � \t |$ §! I � § ! . � §§� k ££§ « §§§ e § 4 !6 §# k/# Oa g!Hv ! _|! \ _� !| > ¥ a # /y 000000#!_ \���/} |/a#; _/s !J d |! || a=g==;- 6 � §;§m °� � 2 , -�....�00 § § { I § � I I INLETS I I I I I F J I I I I I I I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING 1 DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ------------- --------------------------------------- FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. DATE 05-28-1998 AT TIME 09:47:16 ** PROJECT TITLE: HARMONY REDSIGN *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 1 Ou UGC 1�7 1 a.�- INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 9.05 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 1.00 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.99 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.30 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 1� STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 11.13 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.39 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 1.65 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.40 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 15.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 2.30 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOWGINTERCEPTED (Cfs)= 2.29 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0. 01 <: — BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.30 oV`-i` fv FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)= 1.96 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs) = 0.34 i rt A t---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING i DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD -------------------- --------------------------------------- FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. IN DATE 05-28-1998 AT TIME 09:52:50 t* PROJECT TITLE: HARMONY REDSIGN *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 2 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 16.33 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.99 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.96 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 3.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 6.50 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.30 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 4.55 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 0.59 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR M = 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 2.67 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs) = 2. 70 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.59 `} CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.111 Wes! BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.70 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.40 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.30 I t G �f---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING + DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ----------------- --------------------------------------- FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. DATE 08-04-1998 AT TIME 10:15:33 PROJECT TITLE: HARMONY REDESIGN *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: _16 ( 1 D J✓ ;�D(,j) I INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. h I GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 11.13 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.39 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.01 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.40 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW 10.11 (cfs)= 4.20 r=-- )0y10 FLD� (cfs)= 4.20 i3flS/NZ (cfs)= 0.0 )N�-E'T- � (cfs) = 4.20 (cfs)= 4.20 0 (cfs) = 0.00 BA51t,3 5 STORM DRAIN THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP Project: Project No. 00$ By: Tl_ Checked: Date: S� C7 7 Sheet of I i_ ` SL,) A Lp lk7 1 � �7H ;= (� L ? .ID L= ?c/�•ryU L= 2 p c�.89 L_ W.SEL - V. �9i� TU L �__�,� 3�4, Q VICE'S-) 5TMH-I STm 1 2 sTm� ..3 :� �e �bwvn0.tle,✓ Ca)CS CQ�Lu�0.i-1ohS 'Pa� Zg L�S16,OPT/ OeJ U 0 CC) O ((J N 0 O 1I7 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N N O O O O N M M N Co CO tt V N M M�rnrro�v N N N N Lo M 0) 0) r ao W O M O O O oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 OI O O O O o 0 0 O N N N N O V a 0) 0) 0) 0) , V O O O O O O O V T O T 0 6 6 6 7 g o r 0 5 5 c 0 ro M N N N O � N M �f O N NI N M 7 LO 0 r M O O O O O O O N M M Ci M r N CO N N N N N a m m O O O r (O N V � O O 0 r N 6 W W W 1 O N N N N N N N N M v V) (O r OI U U e W O F D a W D Cn F W a a 04 N X J U H a J J W Z Q N ul IL FL N CT a STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study USER:Kelvin Gingery.......................................................... ON DATA 08-04-1998 AT TIME 14:07:32 VERSION=12-29-1995 *** PROJECT TITLE :Harmony Road Redesign *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 10 YEARS (Design flow hydrology not calculated using UDSEWER) SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS 11 ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET 1.00 8.20 . 1. NO 2.00 8.20 22 22.25 25 19.8282 OK 3.00 2.30 26.45 21.55 OK 4.00 2.30 29.10 24.33 OK 5.00 6.00 2.30 2.30 29.50 29.50 27.11 27.30 OK OK 7.00 2.70 21.67 20.16 OK 8.00 4.20 20.76 20.21 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS 1 " NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 ----------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED ----------------- SUGGESTED EXISTING �� ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) WIDTH ID NO. ID -------------------------"----------------------------------------------------- NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (1N) (FT) (FT) 21.00 2.00 1.00 ARCH 19.57 21.00 14.00 23.00 1 32.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 10.35 15.00 15.00 0.00 43.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 10.35 15.00 15.00 0.00 54.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 10.35 15.00 15.00 0.00 65.00 6.00 72.00 7.00 5.00 2.00 ROUND ROUND 10.35 7.71 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 82.00 8.00 2.00 ROUND 14.89 18.00 15.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY N0, NUMBER CFS CFS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS 21.0 8.2 7.1 1.54 4.39 1.09 5.80 4.39 0.00 V-OK 32.0 2.3 6.2 0.53 4.68 0.62 3.76 1.87 1.31 V-OK 43.0 2.3 6.2 0.53 4.68 0.62 3.76 1.87 1.31 V-OK 54.0 2.3 6.2 0.53 4.68 0.62 3.76 1.87 1.31 V-OK 65.0 2.3 6.2 0.53 4.68 0.62 3.76 1.87 1.31 V-OK 72.0 2.7 16.0 0.35 9.70 0.67 4.07 2.20 3.43 V-OK 82.0 4.2 4.3 1.00 3.99 0.83 4.87 3.42 0.69 V-OK _ FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS •;G ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM --------- % --'-------- (FT) ---------- (FT) (FT) ----------" (FT) 21.00 0.39 18.15 16.69 2.93 ----- 0.34 -- NO 32.00 0,92 20,93 18,25 4.27 2.75 OK 43.00 0.92 23.71 21.03 4.14 4.17 OK 54.00 0.92 26.49 23.81 1.76 4.04 NO 65.00 0.92 26.49 26.49 1.76 1.76 NO 72.00 6.10 18.67 18.25 1.75 2.75 NO 82.00 0.44 18,18 18,15 1.33 2.85 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION �1 21.00 ----FEET- 376.40 FEET 376.40 FEET 19.32 FEET 17.85 FEET 19.82 FEET 17.78 PRSS'ED 32.00 290.90 107.40 22.18 19.50 21.55 19.82 JUMP 43.00 290.90 0.00 24.96- 22,28 24.33 21,55 JUMP 54.00 290.90 0.00 27.74 25.06 27.11 24.33 JUMP 65.00 0.10 0.00 27.74 27.74 27.30 27.11 JUMP 72.00 6.89 6.89 19.92 19.50 20.16 19.82 PRSS'ED 82.00 6.89 6.89 19.43 19.40 20.21 19.82 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT 21.0 2.00 20.12 2.34 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 17.78 32.0 3.00 21.77 1.36 0.06 0.00 0.25 0.29 2.00 20.12 43.0 4.00 24.55 2.78 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 21.77 54.0 65.0 5,00 27,33 6.00 27.36 2,78 0.01 0,05 0.25 0,00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 5.00 24.55 27.33 72.0 7.00 20.23 0.01 1.32 0.10 0.00 0.00 2.00 20.12 82.0 8.00 20.39 0.03 1.32 0.24 0.00 0.00 2.00 20.12 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES A MINIMUM JUCTION THE VELOCITY HEAD LOSS OF 0.05 OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. t 2,15,20,3,2,1,.8,500,300,.2,Y 1,10 1.35,28.5, 10,.786 8 1 , 17.51 ,0, 1 ,21 ,0,0,0 8.2,0, 1 ,.5,0,09090,0 2,22.25,21,3,32,72,82,0 8.2,0, 1 ,.5,0,0,0,0,0 3,26.45,32, 1 ,43,0,090 2.3,0,1,.5,0,0,0,0,0 4,29.1 ,43, 1 ,54,0,0,0 2.3,0, 1 9.5,0,0,0,0,0 5929.5,54,1,6590,0,0 2.3,0, 1 ,.5,0,0,0,0,0 6,29.5,65,0,0,0,0,0 2.3,0,1,.5,0,0,0,0,0 7 , 21.67 , 72 , 0 , 0 9 0 , 0 , 0 2.7,0,1,.5,0,0,0,0,0 8,20.76,82,0,0,0,0,0 4.2,0, l 9.5,0,0,0,0,0 7 21 ,376.4,.399 19.32,.013, 1 ,0,3, 14,23 32,290.9,.92,22.18,.013,.06,.25,1,15,0 43,290.9,.92,24.96,.013,.05,0, 1 , 15,0 54,290.9,.92,27.74,.013,.05,0, 1 , 15,0 65,.1,.92,27.74,.013,.25,0,1,15,0 72 , 6.89, 6.1 , 19.92 9 .013 , 1.32 , 0, 1 , 15 , 0 82,6.89,.44, 19.43,.013, 1.32,0, 1 , 15,0 -,15,0 72,6 ` Program 3EB Version 1.3 Page 1 Company: THE SEAR BROWN GROUP Project: HARMONY ROAD REDESIGN Designer: TLD 05-28-1998 File: HARM WARNING ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The successful application and use of this software product is dependent on the application of skilled engineering judgement and is the responsibility of the user. The user must select input values suitable to his specific installation. The information presented in the computer output is for review, interpretation, application and approval by a qualified engineer. ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTIES COVERING THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM OR PROGRAM USER MANUAL INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED. SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER INC. AND THE AMERICAN CONCRETE PIPE ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES ARISING FROM BREACH OF WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER LEGAL THEORY EVEN IF SUCH PARTIES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF SUCH DAMAGES. D-LOAD REQUIREMENTS FOR A 23 in. SPAN HORIZONTAL ELLIPTICAL PIPE P I P E D A T A ( ----Span-(in23 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- .00 Rise (in.) 14.00 Wall Thickness (in.) 2.750 i I N S T A L L A T I O N C O N D I T I O N S -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum Depth of Fill (ft) 0.25 Maximum Depth of Fill (ft) 2.00 Soil Density (lb/cu. ft) 120.0 Bedding Class 3 Installation Type Trench Trench Width;(ft) 3.92 Soil Lateral Pressure/Friction Term (kmu') 0.1300 Parameters to Compute Transition Width Positive Projection Ratio 0.50 Soil Lateral Pressure Ratio 1.00 Soil Lateral Pressure/Friction Term (kmu) 0.1300 Settlement Ratio 0.70 A D D I T I 0 N A L L O A D S -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Live Load AASHTO HS-20 No Surcharge Load F A C T O R S O F S A F E T Y -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Factor of Safety on 0.01 Inch Crack D-Load (Earth,Live) 1.00 1.00 Factor of Safety on Ultimate Earth and Live Load (ASTM C 76) DL.01 Less Than 2000 lbs/ft/ft 1.50 DL.01 Greater Than 3000 lbs/ft/ft 1.25 DL.01 Between 2000 and 3000 lbs/ft/ft Interpolated I �y f Program 3EB Version 1.3 Page 2 Company: THE SEAR BROWN GROUP Project: HARMONY ROAD REDESIGN Designer: TLD 05-28-1998 File: HARM D-LOAD REQUIREMENTS FOR A 23 in. SPAN HORIZONTAL ELLIPTICAL PIPE +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ R E S U L T S O F A N A L Y S I S ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipe ------Earth Load----- Live Surch Total Bedding Required D-Load Depth Arching >Trans Load Load Load Load Factor 0.01 in. Ult. (ft) Factor (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) DL LL (lb/ft/ft) 0.3 1.01 Y 72. 6117. 0. 6189. 1.8 j1843. 2764. 0.5 1.03 Y 146. 5058. 0. 5204. 1.8 1550. 2324. 0.8 1.04 Y 223. 4564. 0. 4787. 1.8 / 1425. 2138. 1.0 1.06 Y 301. 4009. 0. 4310. 1.8 1283. 1925. 1.3 1.07 Y 382. 3025. 0. 3407. 1.8 1014. 1522. 1.5 1.09 Y 465. 2531. 0. 2996. 1.8 ' 892. 1338. 1.8 1.10 Y 550. 2156. 0. 2706. 1.8 806. 1209. 2.0 1.12 Y 637. 1863. 0. 2501. 1.8 745. 1117. 1116 L d ten- I us£ e CLASS -3 E doh C 507 13 TABLE 1 Design Requirements for Horizontal Elliptical (HE) Pipe" NOTE 1-The test bad in pounds per linear foot equals D-load x inside span in feet. NOTE 2-Single cage reinforcement, providing tension steel at the top, bottom, and springline, shall be permined instead of double cage reinforcement. The area of Quch reinforcement shalt be 112 % of the tabulated inner cage area. VOTE 3-An inner and outer cage plus quadrant mats shell be permitted instead of double cage reinforcement. The area of such reinforcement shall be in accordance m Fig. 2. NOTE 4-An inner and outer cage plus a middle cage shall be permitted instead of double cage reinforcement. The area of such reinforcement shall be in so= ante with Fig. 4. M -,«a d lu a Li4 myono u,ose snows m mis table, pope designs are available that make use of one or a combination of the followi ng: shear steel, multiple cages, or thicker wells In accordance with the provisions o17.3. 9 Concrete strength for designs with reinforcement tabulated. For modified or special designs, see 7.3. 6.4; by absorption tests on selected samples from the wall of lithe pipe; and by inspection of the finished pipe to determine ts conformance with the design prescribed in this specifica- tion and its freedom from defects. 5,1.2 Acceptance on Basis of Material Tests and Inspec- tion of the Complete Product -Acceptability of the pipe in all sizes and classes produced in accordance with 7.1 or 7.2 shall be determined by the results of such material tests as are required in accordance with 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4 by crushing tests on concrete cores or cured concrete cylinders; by ' bsorption tests on selected samples from the wall of the pipe; and by inspection of the finished pipe, including cmount and placement of reinforcement, to determine its onformance with the design prescribed in this specification nd its freedom from defects. 5.1.3 When agreed upon by the purchaser and the manu- acturer, any portion or any combination of the tests temized in 5.1.1 or 5.1.2 may form the basis of acceptance. i Reinforcement, in.=/linear It Designated Class HE -A Class HE -I Class HE -II Class HE -III Class HE -IV Diameter, Designated Minimum wan D-Loads Equivalent Rise, in. x 0.01 - 600 0.01 - 800 0.01 - 1000 0.01 - 1350 0.01 - 2000 Round Span' in. Thickness, Size, in. in. Ult - 900 Ut - 1200 Ut - 1500 Ut - 2000 Ut - 3000 In Out In out In out In Out in out Cage Cage Cage Cage Cage Cage Cage Cage Cage Cage 18 14 x 23 23A 0.08 ... 0.11 ... 0.14 ... 0.19 0.27 24 27 19 x 30 22 x 34 3% 3% 0.11 0.14 ... 0.15 ... 0.19 ... 026 ... ... 0.39 30 24 x 38 33'i 0.10 ... 0.10 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.46 0.34 0.34 33 36 27 x 42 3U 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.28 028 0.41 0.41 39 29 x 45 32 x 49 4% 43A 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.26 0.39 0.39 42 34 x 53 5 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.44 0.44 48 38 x 60 5% 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50 54 43 x 68 6 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.27. 0.28 0.34 0.28 0.34 0.39 0.45 0.39 0.45 60 48 x 76 6% 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.40 0.40 0.53 0.53 66 53 x 83 7 027 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.45 0.45 0.61 0.61 72 58 x 91 714 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.52 0.52 0.70 0.70 78 63 x 98 8 0.34 0.34 0.45 0.45 0.56 0.56 0.78 0.78 84 68 x 106 8% 0.38 0.38 0.50 0.50 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 102 82 x 128 9% 108 87 x 136 10 ... ... 114 92 x 143 101h ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 120 97 x 15/ tt ... ... ... ... 132 106 x 166 12 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Concrete strength', psi 4000 4000 4000 18 to 66 In. 4000 4000 72 to 84 in. 5000 5.2 Age for Acceptance -Pipe shall be considered ready for acceptance when they conform to the requirements as indicated by the specified tests. 6. Materials 6.1 Cement -Cement shall conform to the requirements for portland cement of Specification C 150, or shall be portland blast -furnace slag cement or portland-pozzolan cement conforming to the requirements of Specification C 595. 6.2 Aggregates -Aggregates shall conform to Specifica- tion C 33 except that the requirement for gradation shall not apply. 6.3 Admixtures and Blends -Admixtures and blends may be used with the approval of the purchaser. 6.4 Steel Reinforcement -Reinforcement shall consist of wire conforming to the Specification A 82, or Specifica- 1 - .4 -Is THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP .40 Project: Project NO. By: Checked: Date: 20 Sheet of iI, 000 O O O O O O o Ln Ln O � N .- O O N r� r � O O rn r- Ln o 0 ao O O o O O 000 M rn rn O N N (D a) U to coO= � of ai Cl) M O , N Cl) N Cl) R w a a a J U d' U co O H D a w U F LLI 0- Cl) N X "v J U H a J J w w a w w a U) w Z Y U_ 2 F J a U) 0 J U Z N C'D. O Q LL O w LL LL, a O a LL LL 00 a. a 00 H F- 22 d t�. -------------------- STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study ON DATA 10-26-1998 AT TIME 16:14:38 VERSION=12-29-1995 PROJECT TITLE :HARMONY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 10 YEARS (Design flow hydrology not calculated using UDSEWER) *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ----------------- --------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 3.60 8.78 7.90 OK 2.00 3.60 10.26 8.70 OK 3.00 3.60 10.40 9.72 OK 4.00 3.60 10.40 10.37 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE. THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 ----- --- ----- ---- -------------- ---- ------ - SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) WIDTH ID NO. 1D NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i, 21.00 2.00 1.00 ARCH 15.10 17.00 14.00 23.00 32.00 3.00 2.00 ARCH 9.87 14.00 14.00 23.00 43.00 4.00 3.00 ARCH 9.87 14.00 14.00 23.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISTTNG SIZE WAS USED -----------------------------------------------------------=----------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. COMMENT CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS --NUMBER ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 21.0 3.6 6.2 0.84 3.45 0.72 4.21 1.93 0.74 V-OK 32.0 3.6 19.3 0.45 7.91 0.72 4.21 1.93 2.45 V-OK 43.0 3.6 19.3 0.45 7.91 0.72 4.21 1.93 2.45 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION IBURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) 21.00 0.30 7.85 7.38 1.24 0.24 NO 32.00 2.90 9.00 7.86 0.23 1.24 NO 43.00 2.90 9.00 9.00 0.23 0.23 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET ICAMBR.REP 7- 2 October 26, 1998 ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ----------- SEWER ------------ SEWER SURCHARGED -------- ---------- CROWN ELEVATION ---------- ------------ WATER ELEVATION -------- -------- FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21.00 159.10 0.00 9.02 8.54 8.70 7.90 SUBCR 32.00 39.57 0.00 10.17 9.02 9.72 8.70 JUMP 43.00 0.10 0.00 10.17 10.17 10.37 9,72 JUMP PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ` ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21.0 2.00 8.88 0.98 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.90 32.0 3.00 10.00 1.11 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 8.88 43.0 4.00 10.42 0.41 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.00 10.00 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. i 'i CAMBR.REP 23 October 26, 1998 I. bR- R F-iL,& HARMONY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROFILE C - UNDER CAMBRIDGE ROAD 2, 14,20,3,2, 1 ,.8,500,300,.2,Y 1,10 1.35,28.5,10,.786 4 1,8.78,0,1,21,0,0,0 3.6,0,1,.5,0,0,0,0,0 2,10.26,21,1,32,0,0,0 3.6,0, 1,.5,0,0,0,0,0 3, 10.4,32, 1 ,43,0,0,0 3.6,0,1,.5,0,0,0,0,0 4,10.4,43,0,0,0,0,0 3.6,0,1,.5,0,0,0,0,0 3 21,159.1,.3,9.020001,.013,1,0,3,14,23 32,39.57,2.9,10.17,.013,.15,0,3,14,23 U 43,.1,2.9,10.17,.013,.25,0,3,14,23 1, 14 , 23 r. 32,39.57,2.9, 10.17,.013,.15,0,3, 14,23 43,.1,2.9, 10.17,.013,.25,0,3, 14,2 USED TO FIND DEPTH IN SWALE Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet EAST OF CAMBRIDGE ROAD Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 5.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 5.000000 H : V Bottom Width 5.00 ft Discharge 3.60 cfs Results Depth 0.52 ft �- Flow Area 3.91 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 10.26 ft Top Width 10.16 ft Critical Depth 0.23 ft Critical Slope 0.091110 ft/ft Velocity 0.92 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft Specific Energy 0.53 ft Froude Number 0.26 Flow is subcritical. o� i j oj�E-t Tn }V1 = 5907• `3`a 10/26/98 2 5 FlowMaster v5.15 03:43:30 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 11 1 Program 3EB Version 1.3 Page 1 Company: The sear Brown Group Project: Harmony Road Redesign Designer: TLD 10-27-1998 '! File: CAMBR WARNING ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The successful application and use of this software product is dependent on the application of skilled engineering judgement and is the responsibility of the user. The user must select input values suitable to his specific installation. The information presented in the computer output is for review, interpretation, application and approval by a qualified engineer. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTIES COVERING THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM OR PROGRAM USER MANUAL INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED. SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER INC. AND THE AMERICAN CONCRETE PIPE ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES ARISING FROM BREACH OF WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER LEGAL THEORY EVEN IF SUCH PARTIES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF SUCH DAMAGES. D-LOAD REQUIREMENTS FOR A 23 in. SPAN HORIZONTAL ELLIPTICAL PIPE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ P I P E D A T A ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- Span (in.) 23.00 Rise (in.) 14.00 Wall Thickness (in.) 2.750 • I N S T A L L A T I O N C O N D I T I O N S -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum Depth of Fill (ft) 0.50 Maximum Depth of Fill (ft) 3.00 Soil Density (lb/cu. ft) 120.0 Bedding Class 3 Installation Type Trench Trench Width;(ft) 4.00 Soil Lateral Pressure/Friction Term (kmu') 0.1300 Parameters to Compute Transition Width Positive Projection Ratio 0.50 \� Soil Lateral Pressure Ratio 1.00 Soil Lateral Pressure/Friction Term (kmu) 0.1300 Settlement Ratio 0.70 A D D I T I O N A L L 0 A D S -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Live Load AASHTO HS-20 No Surcharge Load F A C T O R S O F S A F E T Y -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Factor of Safety on 0.01 Inch Crack D-Load (Earth,Live) 1.00 1.00 Factor of Safety on Ultimate Earth and Live Load (ASTM C 76) DL.01 Less Than 2000 lbs/ft/ft 1.50 DL.01 Greater Than 3000 lbs/ft/ft 1.25 DL.01 Between 2000 and 3000 lbs/ft/ft Interpolated J zko 1 Program 3EB Version 1.3 Page 2 Company: The sear Brown Group Project: Harmony Road Redesign Designer: TLD 10-27-1998 File: CAMBR D-LOAD REQUIREMENTS FOR A 23 in. SPAN HORIZONTAL ELLIPTICAL PIPE R E S U L ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T S O F A N A L Y S I S Pipe ------Earth Load----- Live Surch Total Bedding (Required D-Load Depth Arching >Trans Load Load Load Load Factor 1 0.01 in. Ult. (ft) Factor (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) DL LL (lb/ft/ft) 0.5 1.03 Y 146. 5058. 0. 5204. 2.0 1370. 2055. 1.0 1.06 Y 301. 4009. 0. 4310. 2.0 1135. 1702. 1.5 1.09 Y 465. 2531. 0. 2996. 2.0 789. 1183. 2.0 1.12 Y 637. 1863. 0. 2501. 2.0 658. 987. 2.5 1.15 Y 820, 1319. 0, 2138. 2.0 563. 844. 3.0 1.18 Y 1012. 958. 0. 1970. 2.0 519. 778. '1us will b� vst� so`r' wo+^6} �, cA� cextd.i �or� . ,1, 7 :l Use : Gu4bL5 Fie -10 Cl�rb�{Ie.C) I i 11 I I I I 'I I SWALE 'I 0 1 The Sear -Brown Group Project: HARMONY ROAD REDESIGN Designer: TLD Project #. 737-008 Date: 08/04/98 Location: OUTLET OF PIPE FQw.4. Tv Pipe dia.: 18 in —�i t Tailwater 0.6 ft Discharge 7.6 cfs I xZ3'r Max. V. 5 ft/s ' I. Required riprap type: O/D12.5 = 2.76 < 6 --> use design charts D = 1.50 ft YUD = 0.40 O/D^1.5 = 4.14 d50 = 6 in USE 6 INCH RIPRAP AS A MINIMUM ----> Use Class 6 riprap 2. Expansion factor. 1 / [2 tan(theta)] = 4.6 3. Riprap length: At = ON = 1.52 ft2 L = 1/[2tan(theta)]'(At/Yt - D) = 5 ft 4. Governing limits: L>3D= 5 ft L<10D= 15 ft <=5ft-->OK =>5ft-->OK 5. Maximum depth: ' Depth = 2d50 = 2 (6 in / 12) = 1 ft 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap width: Width = 3D = 3 (18 in /12) = 5 ft Summary: Class 6 riprap Length = 5 ft Depth = 1 ft Width = 5 ft �+ To account for the flow entering the swale Bury with 6 inches topsoil. from basins 4 and 5, the width of the riprap shall be ten (10) feet. n Riprap Design ' =9 04-Aug-98 The Sear -Brown Group Riprap Design using UDFCD Methods Project: HARMONY ROAD REDESIGN Designer: TLD Project #. 737-008 Date: 26-Oct-98 ' Location: Outfall / FES (PROFILE C) Pipe dia.: 14 in Tailwater: 0.466667 ft (variable/unknown) Discharge 3.6 cfs Max Vel.: 5 ft/s (soil dependent) THE PIPE IS A 14" X 23" ELLEPTICAL PIPE (EQUIV. TO 18" CIRCULAR) 1. Required riprap type: Q/D^2.5 = 2.45 < 6 --> use design charts i D = 1.17 ft Yt/D = 0.40 Q/DAl .5 = 2.86 d50 = in ----> Use Type 0 (Class 0) riprap 2. Expansion factor.• 1 / [2 tan(theta)] = 4.4 3. Riprap length: At = Q/V = 0.72 ft2 L = 1/[2tan(theta)]'(At/Yt - D) = 2 ft 4. Governing limits: L> 3D = 4 ft increase length to 4 ft L<10D= 12 ft =>2ft-->OK 5. Maximum depth: Depth = 2d50 = 2 (0 in / 12) = ft 6. Bedding. Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap width: Width = 3D = 3 (14 in /12) = 4 ft Summary. Type 0 (Class 0) riprap Length = 4 ft Depth = ft 11 Width = 4 ft A MINUMUM OF CLASS 6 RIPRAP WILL BE USED: ,. THE LENGTH OF THE RIPRAP SHALL BE 4 FT THE WIDTH OF THE RIPRAP SHALL BE 5 FT (This accounts for the 23" span of the pipe) ' THE DEPTH SHALL BE 1 FT 1 11 IW 26-Oct-98 1 Rio � I/ evni ) South Swale in Median ' Worksheet for Triangular Channel II� llA i0 �-CJU O- 04 r e?lJ. ✓ t I n S 6JaA SG,k Project Description M6bAO - roln sTR, -To S !. )23 yq Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Flow Element Swale at pipe outlet Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula 1 Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 6.000000 H : V ' Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V 4,0 ' 1• C,F; (BPhslr Discharge 1.86 cfs Results Depth 0.70 ft �_;,:`�_ ,•./,..•,�;I Q oo� :.>!.► Flow Area 2.43 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 7.12 ft Top Width 6.97 ft Critical Depth 0.39 ft ' Critical Slope 0.093240 ft/ft Velocity 0.77 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft Specific Energy 0.71 ft Froude Number 0.23 Flow is subcritical. 11 08/04/98 FlowMaster v5.15 ' 03:14:34 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 31 ' North Swale in Median Worksheet for Triangular Channel `.T?i oF s.�. -P/ rrJ lY^brN,1J .! t:)n . Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Swale at pipe outlet Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula 1 Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 6.000000 H : V >' Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Q,o = 0.9 GFS df}srrJ 9 Discharge 1.20 cfs 1-2 Q/o - 1, 20 CF5 Results Depth 0.59 ft1-crfn` Flow Area 1.75 ft2 ' Wetted Perimeter 6.04 ft Top Width 5.92 ft Critical Depth 0.32 ft Critical Slope 0.098856 ft/ft Velocity 0.69 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft Specific Energy 0.60 ft Froude Number 0.22 M Flow is subcritical. 08/04/98 3 Z FlowMaster v5.15 ' 03:14:03 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 r [1 I 1 I I Swale at pipe oulet Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Swale at pipe outlet Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.008400 ft/ft ' Left Side Slope 6.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 6.000000 H : V Discharge 13.96 cfs Results Depth 1.20 ft I<- _ -- 0 OA o Flow Area 8.70 ft2 I Wetted Perimeter 14.65 ft V 7. = "', Top Width 14.45 ft �t z':t :a'�;.Ir 1•=:.:. ;,. Critical Depth 0.80 ft ca-p > / Critical Slope 0.072379 ft/ft �,20 �-T 7 •� Velocity 1.60 ft/s Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 1.24 ft Froude Number 0.36 Flow is subcritical. to �nerl C/art i3 y tm) �;p1e_ N ✓ = i�li� ,?o 1 ST, 6.:.',1.1 +' � '•-' p. rG �". BCD .- 08/04/98 33 FlowMaster v5.15 ' 11:59:43 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 r I I I r I I I I I I Swale at design point 6 Work`sh \ee--t for Triangular Channel II �T to) Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Swale at Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 L Channel Slope 0.00970O ft/ft <- Left Side Slope 6.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 6.000000 H : V Discharge 13.83 cfs E - /QIo c c2s5ti t,T to 10,y CFS 13; Quo = 1� 83 LFS Results Depth 1.17 ft E - Flow Area 8.19 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 14.21 ft Top Width 14.02 ft Critical Depth 0.80 ft Critical Slope 0.072474 ft/ft Velocity 1.69 ft/s Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 1.21 ft Froude Number 0.39 Flow is subcritical. AT -PT (o : IQ oP 14,77FT MA)< l✓S £zE ✓' )b. 20 F7 -t.OaC C t U uit^Trc1 j ; '10vof 09 =c nir C"� y k-P4 . I � q3 7 I I ;, 1 { 08/04/98 12:19:46 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 [1 I 1 C I L I I I I I I Swale at pipe outlet Worksheet for Triangular Channel v oz oj.N,: �klou ly sw�:G Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Swale at pipe outlet Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data \ Mannings Coefficient 0.060 e- 1uo 4Q42.,- I ZF irnaviastsaJe.,- Channel Slope 0.008400 ft/ft �— �lo�e �+Y6� IQD �+ ° ! ``�( Left Side Slope 6.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 6.000000 H : V Discharge 10.50 cfs E- Qloyr p�))e� _ pe a,�\A Q y S 8.z+ D,cl fl, i Results Depth 1.08 ft Flow Area 7.03 ft2.�a EL6Vai Gv�c�= 9�)e, Wetted Perimeter 13.17 ft Top Width Critical Depth 12.99 0.72 ft ft Critical Slope 0.075180 ft/ft �— w end OA t0>A&1 °" hy1*-Di% Velocity 1.49 ft/s -E— Uk5eLk Velocity Head 0.03 ft Specific Energy 1.12 ft Froude Number 0.36 Flow is subcritical. e, SZ✓rads�! .. 08/04/98 35 FlowMaster v5.15 01:36:56 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I I I 11 I I I I I Swale at pipe outlet Worksheet for Triangular Channel +er-►i /C � , ,; , 1, Y:] °� i '-.:-• `r— ) 1 C L(Zero. Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Swale at pipe outlet Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.008400 ft/ft Left Side Slope 6.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 6.000000 H : V Discharge 33.30 cfs Results _. 3 Depth 1.67 ft Flow Area 16.71 ftZ Wetted Perimeter 20.30 ft Top Width 20.02 ft Critical Depth 1.14 ft Critical Slope Velocity 0.064461 1.99 ft/ft ft/s 2l. ^mod �° CD'"�" 'N,Jtwjy 4Y f)Y'eG Velocity Head 0.06 ft Specific Energy 1.73 ft Froude Number 0.38 Flow is subcritical. 08/04/98 ' 01:51:04 PM 30 FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DEPTH IN SWALE SOUTH OF HARMONY (Q10) Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet SWALE SOUTH OF HARMONY RD Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth ' Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.007300 ft/ft ' Left Side Slope Right Side Slope 6.000000 H : V 4.000000 H : V Discharge 3.60 cfs m ' Results Depth 0.80 ft /p ,nsL,)at( Flow Area 3.18 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 8.14 ft Top Width 7.98 ft Critical Depth 0.50 ft Critical Slope 0.085396 ft/ft Velocity 1.13 ft/s Velocity Head 0.02 ft Specific Energy 0.82 ft Froude Number 0.32 Flow is subcritical. I '10/27/98 3 } FlowMaster v5.15 03:40:57 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DEPTH IN SWALE SOUTH OF HARMONY (Q100) Worksheet for Triangular Channel ' Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet SWALE SOUTH OF HARMONY RD ' Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth ' Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.007300 ft/ft ' Left Side Slope Right Side Slope 6.000000 H : V 4.000000 H : V 0I00 y✓ _ Flo Cr- S 10 I� 900S Discharge 10.11 cfs F- 1,334,00y✓ Results Depth /DDjr dtp411 in bL� - 'marks VAe cok4 1.18 ft mt�-- ' Flow Area 6.90 ftZ Wetted Perimeter 11.99 ft Top Width 11.75 ft ' Critical Depth 0.76 ft Critical Slope 0.074407 ft/ft Velocity 1.46 ft/s Velocity Head 0.03 ft Specific Energy 1.21 ft Froude Number 0.34 Flow is subcritical. 1 1 '10/27/98 FlowMaster v5.15 03:45:53 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' =rigation ditch Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw\harmonyi.fm2 ' Worksheet Flow Element Temp. irrigation ditch Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.022 -*Z � Channel Slope 0.008000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 2.500000 H : V ' Right Side Slope 2.500000 H : V Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 6.00 cfs r Alla;,a:.14t< Results Depth :. ' .. 0.56 r Flow Area 1.90 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 5.01 ft Top Width 4.79 ft Critical Depth 0.52 ft Critical Slope 0.010357 ft/ft Velocity 3.16 ft/s ' Velocity Head 0.16 ft Specific Energy 0.71 ft Froude Number Flow is subcritical. 0.89 I 1 ,_. 10/21/98 /-s L7 A FlowMaster v5.13 03:34:23 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside oad Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 STREET CAPACITIES 3q I 01 Project: Project No. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP BY: 772-4Checked: Date: p u Sheet of ZEDL)Jl?errlc-�l : k5k'F404J I'Q 5T�Z� 1.2 C r 1,7 1:� F V Cr Lti;ILL_ IQUOtATE THE Dr=Vi: LDPEI) FLC)L-)5 CaaL> I -Lc Er THCZ Ct,�-L._)VD of avl) IQ 1OHic�l FLOL.D 1,2�LL tViCt:7 C) -,-7,4 i. I; ', ZV`L:, 7pe 'C*l-1 1 f -T! .. __ L LJ p7t L,-') I L So of NS 7FE FLOL-J �4t,lfH —,�P7 Awe LC,�,0 of.) � I 1� L, -7!1 C,4ZO C,3 0 OF 7 f r::-� D t.J 7 0 7-86 7 •50 ' Water Surface Station 161+00 U5ftsi Worksheet for Irregular Channel ' Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Basin 1 - Road Sta. 161 + 00 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Water Elevation Input Data Channel Slope 0.003000 ft/ft Elevation range: 29.55 ft to 31.00 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station End Station Roughness ' 0.00 30.50 0.00 52.00 0.016 12.00 31.00 52.00 66.00 0.013 52.00 29.92 ' 62.00 29.72 64.00 29.55 64.00 30.05 66.00 Discharge 9 30.40 4.10 cfs , Results Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Water Surface Elevation 29.98 ft ' Flow Area 2.31 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 14.54 ft Top Width 14.10 ft Height 0.43 ft Critical Depth 29.95 ft Critical Slope 0.005044 ft/ft ' Velocity 1.77 ft/s Velocity Head 0.05 ft Specific Energy 30.03 ft ' Froude Number 0.77 Flow is subcritical. I 11/12/98 FlowMaster v5.15 02:28:44 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I Cross Section -Sta. 161 +00 Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Basin 1 - Road Sta. 161 + 00 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.003000 fUft ' Water Surface Elevation 29.98 ft Discharge 4.10 cfs f4 15cr x r� ' 31.0 ------------------ r--------- r---------I——————— ------------ r---- - - - - — I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I ---------I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 30.6 11 _ ------- I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I 30.4 ________J_________1_________ L___ _____ L________J_________1____ ___I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 F I I 1 1 I I I v I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 WI I I I I I I --------i--------- i----------------- I----- ' ----I I I 1 1 I I I 29.8 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I - ___.a_ I � I I ----------- ----- I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I 29.6 '1 --------1 -----I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 29.4 I I I I I I I 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 ' Station (ft) 11/12/98 FlowMaster v5.15 02:29:07 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Water Surface Sta. 166+-00 (Basin 2) Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Basin 2 - Road Sta 166 + 00 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation Input Data Channel Slope 0.008000 ft/ft Elevation range: 25.80 ft to 27.30 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station 0.00 27.30 0.00 9.00 26.60 13.00 11.00 26.30 11.00 25.80 13.00 26.00 24.00 26.20 58.00 26.54 Discharge 9.00 cfs < - Results Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.014 Water Surface Elevation 26.29 ft Flow Area 3.33 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 22.74 ft Top Width 22.24 ft Height 0.49 ft Critical Depth 26.32 ft Critical Slope. 0.005418 ft/ft Velocity 2.71 ft/s Velocity Head 0.11 ft Specific Energy 26.41 ft Froude Number 1.23 Flow is supercritical. End Station Roughness 13.00 0.013 58.00 0.016 '11/12/98 FlowMaster v5.15 02:44:10 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 11 1 I I `i 11 1 1 1 Cross Section - Sta. 166+00 Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Basin 2 - Road Sta 166 + 00 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.014 Channel Slope 0.008000 fUft Water Surface Elevation 26.29 ft Discharge 9.00 cfs 27.4 ----- ----- 27.2 ___J------ _____------ ----- 1----- L---- J_____ 1_____ L____ J_____ 1_____ 26.8 I1 I I ----- I- ___1----- L---- J----- 1----- L---- J_____1_____L o 26.6 ---- ----- i:. W ------------------ ------------ 26.2 26.0 ---- - --- ---- 25.8 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0. 50.0 55.0 60.0 Station (ft) 11/12/98 FlowMaster v5.15 02:44:16 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' DG['►K-LSKV W l�l ' 0VEll, 1L <i"oF, oPE,.1 RoAD AV44u49c.6• RT RctTiAt 45 go LE .e _. - a �S - ---- •t------------ ._.._.• r.._.. ... ►•......�•• Stq,lilroo .Ra T •� •• ._. •�����•• _ - _ _ - .. ____ ..-_.__- .. --..._.__ TA cc 1 2E - - _-_ - - - ,.,2ec sh _ - y 2 .. �, ,. ` III I. I (� �. Ifi I. �'�, � � � :�,. �• ,�. :• I_ j I 1 O - _ I 4 - — - - - - j T11 I Ej I : 1 -- NT-S " I. •.v BROWN ! 1 , 1 - I � : - - - - ---------- OvEa. R. F4 � Rvr19 �oT �Nv.>JDA'�5•D NOK�kiSl3Al6 8`f'iTo¢rrwC�ATE� R>aw�oFF ------------ ------------ -- -- -- "-- _ ----" - - --- - --- - -- -------------- - ; -__--•--' - -- ---'"_- --- " -- -- - — --- ------ -- ------ - ------- •• -'--- - --- ----- -- --" - -------------_ ------------- -- - - ---- '_ ----------------- - Lj `` . - -_ __------------- _----- ter'• •• - _-'-" �..�..�..�..� .�• 1. •'• ..�..�..�..�� .............. "-" _________ _ - ---- "\ .�......lr —12 12 o*g- iL 4 oC ` teAb w6f �wzwzoaT6b$y S1btmDrtTEaL4 RurJoFF Pik S�aA�E 'I 1 I 1 1 1 { 1 1 I 1 I \ I I 1 ! I 1 C ,1 / I 1 I I 1 CHARTS TABLE AND S, N FIGURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA TABLE 802C STORM SEWER ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIENT (BENDS AT MANHOLES) 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 DATE: JAN. 198 REV: 1.1 t;3 t.% 1•z 1.2 t.lt. t,t IAS f.t?I 1.0 �+;1L 0:`14 Y 0.6 c 0.1•i 0 o Q•4E V o C 4Y -r 0.6 O SG C:Sz COY$ Q,4'I 0.4 O ,±•fit 0.1$ v8Y 0.2 p.l z C.cS 0.0 y i � I I I z I I I I I I I i Bend at Manhole, 3 no Special Shaping Deflector Curved I I I I Y Bend at Manhole. Curved or Deflector) Manhole I I I I I I I I 00 20° 400 600 600 909 1009 Dellection Angle Y , Degrees NOTE: Head loss applied at outlet of manhole. REFERENCE: Modern Sewer Design, AISI, Washington O.C., 1980. 00 20° 400 600 600 909 1009 Dellection Angle Y , Degrees NOTE: Head loss applied at outlet of manhole. REFERENCE: Modern Sewer Design, AISI, Washington O.C., 1980. 1 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA TABLE 803 1 MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES 1 _ 1 �, PL AN 1gTC ►�AmyTTM °� PLAN 6f 1.161. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 °, 4 •, USE EQUATION 801 SECTION (� = K CASE I. 1 INLET ON MAIN LINE or USE EQUATION 805 Vz'' _ k Vr= d O al (1 K= N"jej> S tc — PLAN USE EQUATION 805 �z � —k viZ 13 vI v� SECTION CASE II INLET ON MAIN LINE PLAN al.'s USE EQUATION 801 k=I.2S- - SECTION SECTION CASE DI MANHOLE ON MAIN LINE WITH A° BRANCH LATERAL .CASE NO. CASE 7Z* INLET OR MANHOLE AT BEGINNING OF LINE CASE III AO K. 0.05 22 11/2 075 0.25 45 0.50 1.25 60 0.35 90 0.25 No Lateral See Case I Date: NOV 198.4 REFERENCE: Rev: I APWA Speclal Report No. 49, 1981 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP PN �4C 0 0 Kq 0 ISO ISO FAA, 0 0 NONE MEME IMEN i pp 95 2 A Y � D .6. .8 1.0 t Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. . ** Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream . FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - 60 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP 8 7 6. = Expansion Angle mmmmmmmm .1 .2 .3 A .5 .6 .1 a TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT .1 .2 .3 A .5 .6 .1 a TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT EROSION CONTROL 52 The Sear -Brown Group ' RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION ' 737-008 1 Project: Harmony Road And Median Design STANDARD FORM Calculated B : tld Date: 01 /07 DEVELOPED ERODIBILITY Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN ZONE (ac) (ft % ft 1 moderate 0.48 390 2.0 38.3 0.2 2 moderate 1.20 860 0.2 211.0 0.0 3 moderate 0.63 935 1.2 120.5 0.2 4 moderate 0.15 230 1.8 7.1 0.1 5 moderate 0.30 230 1.8 14.1 0.1 6 moderate 0.37 250 0.6 18.9 0.0 7 moderate 1.76 1250 1.0 449.9 0.4. Total 4.89 859.8 1.0 77.5 ' EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS Lb = sum(AiLi)/sum(Ai) = (0.48 x 390 +... + 1.76 x 1250)/ 4.89 ' = 859.8 ft Sb = sum(AiSi)/sum(Ai) _ (0.48 x 2.00 + ... + 1.76 x 1.00)/ 4.89 ' = 1.0 % PS (during construction) = 77.5 (from Table 8A) PS (after construction) = 77.5/0.85 = 91.2 53 The Sear -Brown Group EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 7R7-nnR Project. Harmony Road And Median Design STANDARD FORM B Calculated By. tld Date: 01/07 Erosion Control C-Facto P-Factor Comment Number Method Value Value 3 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 1 0.9 4 Sediment/Basin Trap 1 0.5 8 Silt Fence Barrier 1 0.5 12 Established Grass Ground Cover - 30% 0.15 1 38 Gravel Mulch 0.05 1 SUB PS AREA BASIN % ac Site 77.5 4.89 SUB SUB AREA Practice C *A P * A Remarks BASIN AREA ac DURING CONSTRUCTION 1 Pervious 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 1 Impervious . 0.48 38 0.02 0.48 Gravel Mulch 2 Pervious 0.27 3 0.27 0.24 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 2 Impervious 0.93 38 0.05 0.93 Gravel Mulch 3 Pervious 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 3 Impervious 0.63 38 0.03 0.63 Gravel Mulch 4 Pervious 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 4 Impervious 0.15 38 0.01 0.15 Gravel Mulch 5 Pervious 0.04 3 0.04 0.04 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 5 .Impervious 0.26 38 0.01 0.26 Gravel Mulch 6 Pervious 0.14 3 0.14 0.13 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 6 Impervious 0.23 38 0.01 0.23 Gravel Mulch 7 Pervious 0.79 3 0.79 0.71 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 7 Impervious 0.97 38 0.05 0.97 Gravel Mulch Cnet = [O.00x1.00+...+0.97x1.00]/0.00 = 0.29 Pnet = 0.8x[O.00x0.90+...+0.97x0.50]/0.00 = 0.78 EFF = (1-C*P)100 = (1-0.29*0.78)100 = 77.32 ««< 77.5 (PS) 5 `i The Sear -Brown Group EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 7A7-nnA Project: Harmony Road And Median Design STANDARD FORM B Calculated By: tld Date: 01/07 Erosion Control C-Facto P-Factoi Comment Number Method Value Value 9 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 0.01 1 14 Established Grass Ground Cover - 50% 0.08 1 16 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 0.04 1 18 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 0.025 1 SUB PS AREA BASIN % ac Site 91.2 4.89 SUB SUB AREA Practice C * A P * A Remarks BASIN AREA ac AFTER CONSTRUCTION 1 Pervious 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 1 Impervious 0.48 16 0.02 0.48 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 2 Pervious 0.27 9 0.00 0.27 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 2 Impervious 0.93 16 0.04 0.93 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 3 Pervious 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 3 Impervious 0.63 16 0.03 0.63 Established Grass Ground Cover- 70% 4 Pervious 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 4 Impervious 0.15 16 0.01 0.15 Established Grass Ground Cover- 70% 5 Pervious 0.04 9 0.00 0.04 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 5 Impervious 0.26 16 .0.01 0.26 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 6 Pervious 0.14 9 0.00 0.14 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 6 Impervious 0.23 16 0.01 0.23 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 7 Pervious 0.79 9 0.01 0.79 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 7 Impervious 0.97 . 14 0.08 0.97 Established Grass Ground Cover - 50% Cnet = [O.00xO.01+...+0.97x0.08]/0.00 = 0.04 Pnet = [0.00x1.00+.. +0.97x1.00]/0.00 = 1.00 EFF = (1-C*P)l00 = (1-0.04*1.00)100 = 95.97 > 91.2 (PS) 55 The Sear -Brown Group EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 737-008 Project: Harmony Road And Median Design STANDARD FORM C Calculated By., Ud Date: 01/07 SEQUENCE FOR 1998 ONLY Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a, new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. YEAR 99 2000 MONTH M A M J J A S O N D J F OVERLOT GRADING WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Gravel Mulch Asphalt/Concrete Pavingt# VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation N ettings/Mats/Blankets STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR _ DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS C 5b ' The Sear -Brown Group EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE Project. Harmony Road And Median Design 737-008 Prepared By: tld Date: 01 /07 CITY RESEEDING COST Unit Total Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes Reseed/mulch 4.89 ac $636 $3,110 See Note 1. Subtotal $3,110 Contingency 50% $1,555 Total $4,665 Notes: 1. A<=5 ac=$636/ac; A>5 ac=.$531/ac. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES Unit Total Number Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes 5 Straw Bale Barrier 7 ea $150 $1,050 38 Gravel Mulch 3.65 ac $1,350 $4,928 59 Seeding (Native) 1.24 ac $305 $378 Subtotal $6;356 Contingency 50% $3,178 Total $9,533 Total Security $9,533 LEGEND NOTE City of Fort Collins, Colorado x� � UTUM PLAN APPROVAL m' —N989_� EXISTING CONTOUR FIBER OPTIC (E.O.) LINES SHALL BE NDRL 0 25 x &« �1�f 1.L -80"22 -1987 APPROVED: POTHUED TO CWFRIM t AAON IN DEPTH DiWW aftousu g D;b w µD P 67 r PROPOSED CWTOUR l , O'.. _--_-___ Nnr 0 i xs s `5 CHECKED BY , - l\\V'I/ -," m -" w ,�,0°"XI n Tetm l lmMlabr UtWt 1 Deb —^ DIRECTION OF FLOW ' o ; ..` �,* _ _ _ 9CN£ N RyS ,u,' •u .� _ NEQUED BY. 1 DESIGN PUNT `, I 1 `. '� .-'" _.,+ r6br�rt uuty Deb _ ` MINARY , •. , \- --_ _w=-`'- _ _ "-____ - ,_ ____ CHECKED B.Y!• _ __ �••�..� DRAINACE BASIN SOIINOARY I a -_ ___-' - Po ClW91RVCR0T4 aR°W°rU°0- Bsta • BASIN NUMBER ♦ , p ,'• - e _ ___ _ __ _ -- - - ,- - ;- N FR 2. 1998 ,'• W Z 1 ,' ."•" , I _ 1,MAC BASIN AREA , , _'m - 'Q p +� m i �b �n ' ': SHECNm GG 1_ - p —'- B SWALE/DITCH N/ FL011/ T w -_' y _ -� y� _ Deb _'" ,r' w `' +G' w- ev 1_" PROPOSED,Bi RM ( r•'•( •'" . •;v H y's-�� ,> >.. }3 ', 1'j 1NEq NI cr •.t _p;fex�, ss— EXISTING UTILITIES -` [ „ - _ 35�4 _ , 1; f. , „ r _ _ _ _- _— __ 4 1�.�•a�-Pc--� _ _ _ - �' EASTNC STORM SEM>FRl7' ___ _ _ _ _ _ y _ _ _ _ _ _ m -r_- _ — --- �S1MH .. �. a • •n_ _ -_ w w .;_W w w --. .. - _ .,_z' I '. - .�.• ..- - w .e..�..� .� _•�ri.r •... --._ --v u.vr u"u hii{-1 N 8724.10. STA. y2M' ., l 15 g -,lam r _—�u� —oe .TePE ea wL£f--- . •'\ E 109421y`_ N 872864 Y RCP 41 p s� R _ _.... •• 5TA 0400 STA i9090 '• 3 • _A• "� E 11233 3 W 6 �.. 1•> 11 \ -"- N8)20.19 E.By2144 . w...w. ••�..•..• .. .. ,. - NA - BJAC N yy I ------------- P ROE 3 BBC(§ ' �•.� 2 / I-h W [� [ p •� �_i Twc 20A1 PIPE HMO / .8' R II yy 1�- N eEliaEItl — — Y ONY ROAD f 1 r _ -- _'—= _: ,• Ito.. ..2 `,Y• II• hyi F�1�✓/ F �� v ,1N I� I h 1 / I 4916.- I N I ...._ I ...� I eI III CCYYwu I I I I 1 s ' rc 494a :bWs� m N I 2W.90 lFWfY CLIIO 92fi amw OF 18' d O0. .. 80 LF 15' 00.9 e. OF IW-. 3 4940 yIII _--- ..----- ------ - ---- ..-- -F .._�_----. a..._ — -- --- - ---- .- —. -. --. _._.. _ _, RCP_._ _. _ 4940 xx i I I I - tI O 6.1% 6 85 RCP I g S « 4986 CL II °� °x_.- 1 4988 p y�gN GRADE 4980 -CRWrN-... ti —_._ _ _ . _.._ __ _ _ _ ___ — _ _. ____ _ _ _ __ _ _ 1 __ {eso J'o 5 � 10 HIL_ I 4eza - � -- I ---- -- ---- - - _ — — — aeza i II r4920- i --- - Olm 4920 - - 4920 I I 4916 491a _. - - _ 4916 JJ _ - - iuc 4910 I OELE • • ... I _. - - N x - PR LE '9e - - = 4010 '. M W g 0z 0 p m 4906 .—_. _. - .:. _ -: 4906 0 . __. F3z J- LL U 4900 49 L� .y l- k<o N 4896 4895 IN. v 737 0 w O ^I I v4i F M 408 NW N fl Z v i _ WAMNC NO - -.. N 2 W c1 N _ N ( Z j _ _ V 0+00 1 2 3 4 8 8 7 8 9 0+00 1 — -- LEGEND -491119, EXSTING CONTOUR -- 6 S'NALE/DITLW w/ FLOW AMOW -pNPROPOSED CONTOUR m PROPOSED ST MSEWER --�----[ --------� oByzIll OF FLOW -_ ETISPNG UTILITIES • _55= ' -DE9GN P11I14T- _ EXISTING STORM SEWER _ 1 I i _ -u�i•-, DMANIAGE BASIN BOUNDARY � STRAW BALES - 'r r BASIN -NUMBER 1 rI _ e , . rr • L4/AC BASIN AREA 1 r, ------------ .PROFILE SAW .rs 4 I nob - NIfIll .11 E 1=8809.1Y' •4% • I! .� �. f4 - L. 'a�.w. tlERCA '` - - - © • on ..emu v vu TM a• a COINA a 0 Mw eat (IN) xmTN io res 9w1x lap AJ et IDYn - 1.2 63 . 10 TT lamom, - 1.0 OS ID M - 0.5 FT. ID. - Ft. Ill 4CVE . 0.M K SPHA r M. SNIDE . PK City of Fort Collins, Colorado owafrym5,r ATTIDN UTRITY PLAN APPROVAL . IIDRZ n 50 FWV-OLL9F x1y87 MPROYED:tgrW .-� Lo9Neelily P W"MwAT. an ' CONSTRUCTION NOTE 0 '&M-67� cHEacEO BY. 1 s ISM%13 w��r� 0.ater IT lsetewalx vul Dab FIBER OPTIC (F.O.) LWES SHALL BE �'� wT mm CHECKED BY: POIHOLEO TO CONFlNM LOCATION IN DEPTH 9bTmwelD UlWt1 Dsb AND LENGTH BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. PRELIMINARY NOT ]UR commUCTTON CHECKED BY: PD6! ReprwWN Deta NOWNE)IFR 2, 1998 CHECKED BY: Date CHECKED BY: UNES SHALL BE Dat QUTILITIES POTHOLED TO CONFRIM LOCATION IN DEPTH ----------------- SAW. _ _ PP,IOFLE e0•� I •�.• �\.. �.._•_ 20 LF PRO,2 `� tX+OsEO 21' CL !Q 1`� F/ , so REMO`NE EXISTING ED EDGE IRRIGATION DITCH) OFOISPPHHI PIPE a ETANDARD EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES pTn. WOES PERMIT NOTE8r ate m Fm calme swMuhr Thoth each caned Search", West he 1111I m least 24 m O j Hoax chi" te TRY.. each. an Was SAW '. 1 STE DCSCRIPTION: " 3. BKY Fql STP WI.1LR PCLLVTKH MWN".. J NI reWhea WrLnelar all Im[Inq NduM 'nehdlM mat to any Imo deal «t,,ty a. Road and mqm mwurvnmle. Ywuamq elmn a. Cant", ma SNMmh �,m �•. _ (atxapllMq. a zv-t . Pedlnq, etc). other mu w o„ der canhdrneorvna was M'AstOio lady <maW[Gm, is plannM m Ile tllw Sx Ermlm Contra NoVaa d Lµm[w, Table (W'n at the app'� lab time In We conelmolknm•Ww a as Wall In the Worawa project Neel) whro le. W[Ibn plena., and ereno, t ud mwl p. ilhe mal a1MNx de pmnN X Ue haaaX9 e. NeWNa Hw.PNg and SpY peawnlM 1 III rnsUuclkn�aw9. ulYI1Y Xeltllalm, and roe] be mderl}Aw to ompd maw vegNaNM Nall M protected and Wtoo o nhwxer poadple. Remold " Jbtmpmce of e„bIN9 n9X�lbn neat be IYni1N to µa "w r puaN la 'nnmetlmte [maW[Ilm Il,e dls 4.9 wx al AS eau and s ordsh ma M to anaure these malerad do not Now hM NM cmaemwe mJ rode, and J'Aud al not the apewllm0. and for lM NwINI padkd pwbo Of lone. I. omlaFa mp•. ehM qy.. a la Toga dxrxq. umwlkn w weJH9. and wNe the $.ale +SIN a wildly ` 111 NI Was apaeM duan land di ilaAlnq a[IW1 n9. Nq. Nolhr Irlmmime. me. q r d. Italknd 'C + 065 paten c Be ct m. Ralimal "C . 0,77 oxw emewnlm. The site lift Writer me NWweb ma aewwp rand NWa WIOutl• to pox) .art. Lard cl, cmv y-f ActdBg maln'va TOW$ ion by I ch dwoq dmq Ima amlwre emit nll,p al[.) son e. oml N a eaagnen.a tmanbn gamldl ErWNRtY ran wed Mo tt Ma fl 9 NitY ma Wets AT, the mop wale and 1 M war un wa AS Won ngelallm w aµw Pwmmwt waam rely d N XtlwM No voYv In orwa mlaloe Two Nly I" Add War Mary acre' pea We Cr I FM CWNs ton moan. wU Me r a w r in I 'le " n Should1 el a pi hen sontor e p0 1 street table of nor Atli same n eRaaad by cal =I aX lWjPadays patch, entered mmpwary w "mwut enaM <m hd (e.q wM/mu T. landscaped. .ylewyl Y 1,M We WAS . oa nq ale Ogee al_ lunge ents a be Sherri to paµ wd if wl W �' µ Ill x curb wet w Nwm xw Ic.J 4 XXdlad India al er Ix mwowa by We SI"m+otar MANY app�app y . la ya q :a nrdlNwa$mh y rn o Me p,p ty Nd be lamed an,I MOht0la It do WIN cmewttW oat W'd x m to e. property aisle or w anwd road wIUX a fraudcline Added peftert wma ocean ,melon. and AnItIona a[pJnn will M o WWt4Y 44 "tea l dewayed area all eanuxtµn. Ue dxm a I -de nxach. wloW coed coal gaery. 4. AL SIMUZAMI ND Leif TM01 STa1MW/.RR MMeAt NT: I x delwmMW e m al el Fchl came All and Impacts as 1 p ne.. r r .e W pats pxn w r 9 a. she Eeplcn cml,a xar WIa tlwl w and! elwMtalcn En In N Department . q aw 9W 1 utkn ewrcx chs bta led near U• I. No oNr Iw, w pM ea to [mhd ImN F slwm+oW dinner an pwu a M clad and. eWd" rvdural a ee Nd M N q MI Temporary ) e wE oat all site. _ Iwm+ate' [an mm,ta f+N m and a� No nm a p YNT g Cperre sh } OTHER o. Mwwx Nwld be andMlaF m b mma" a.cafv +atle • "ably a edN N "M ho pwlormmce of ry Lr, llmU returnSox wxa Me subject alla. Ha w Icahn µeF diwax el IM x Arrewaear•nl e Of, oh" IOw haL Intended function rolaNM faaonmb, poelkul"IY ll,ox m paved eoaanaY aarlataa. Nall be ramo$aJhood dbpocd of in a moon" a Ixa1M w m no to cause Iheh release At, Me n. Me a+na4wn rwdrMq +aNe b Us Po$M UeM NeN arida all-dM pmrlola mm o. (w World IMII WI-tlb Nwld be m9 TRY dralnNxOY flea M and ann WNy µe Ca[M La Pwdx Rlvw. Slam mnoll Imm U• XI dUmaldy "bar We adNlNn, . andwlNx te mha ma down; soilage hwn icbe tea of a No feu sinned• Nall Ise (ID) Nal In hina. AN aoi Mtll M attracted lean ditch FOISS Cra•o R then wX ewhe a Fo wan 1, µa Faaai hose FeN Rx"each O$e M1to IN wwo 1was" We d Wm We 41a. uJ m H meld Sol ti ed dons wadeoP and dloxd b wisewhe nm-awlwlad M and peelmeler Gill mc'na.AlvoY al«Yyae su . al So fencing aeddmmt by "state Piston, Fie h S er, Ca[M LaOfRiw. Slam xb axeff mm' w9exP .hkh 6e[hvye axnWJy Fb IM CwM1a TO d hen t re,nalnng aM1w .NI Jaya Nall oe oeeaea and multnaJ. raw a Seeded o nreach ,ruff own the de p F OfWeIN us We PW11ND City pd noon We 4ad " rpov of 00.13 or any other mlo She Wordperfect la an bl Wetorl pmdl CY tvp k W tNr to tell Npse. MamMa and owl d Nxl dw S a. IneopI AND Y.WIFHANCL'. a IngaclM ate ma Nwde M advlwan m a 1, wa ool *m" Nxb by 0' both any rNlga. My InWvwlml aeon let malNd Ndl be demo 0' both T 9tTE MM "W it ond" olds as n Swum d W IM Tchme wq 4nmMlal4y by We canYa[Iw. wm Sr P'oFaq ! Musear CmW µm (this aprt) , CENT Cmdllknl el qs mp5 Drsd pxmN Contractor to .wean wo uiotM 564mwt h"n Xwm I ea two wlw to wd =W't e N ve 1 LF OF 14FME HERCP CUSS HE- O a.391F _ p" 11 - _ 4926 ?� fflOPOSED s . NO .:_ MADE 10 YR - 39.a] LF 1 .10 LF 1 ■-H - .. IWy H0. 4920 TN, Hill_. 3E 0 0 - 4920 - _- _ -1 491 s -_ -- - _,--. _ - _ -- -- YR W.S.-- II IDEv. w 4Dna Fr4916 ._>..v-t-.... _...-,_.;.- - ,.� dz< _:. f 111 481E 491E - _.1_,_.",•�L _- r - - POTHOLE T.BEGINNING q• PROPOSE of PRo,E T To - E)65TIN6 BRIDGE 10 A w.a. CONFIRM VATION -1 'USE [LASS 110' PoPRAP ' - - 4910 = WDE t LENGTH . 1' DEEP - r H- < BEDDING M L DOVER TH _- i s ,DPsa�1I - �.' .I tO lli e 4908 HOL _ 490E 490E - USE SS 6 RIPR - 4- . 4900 m s'- w N 4�-� 1p DEEP- `CLASS 4�O 4900 borderT-GO - _ ... _ N -� R W1H _ . - rm _ - - 489E W PR FIL E 'C 188E 4896 -. q -. an 1 MGM - _ - POTHOLE UTIUTESAT TIEGRINING i lFil : d y _ ♦ _ OF CT TO COIN W- -ON - - l,Ql G Z _ _F ' EIEVA AND LOGA - D 111D400 11 12 3 2 1 0400 PROPOSED R.O.W.) 0 DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY �• BASIN (MEID C � is (ala) 1 Q4B OBSff.W�� 1 2 1.20 079 0 - 3 0.1.956 4 O15 -0.B540.8a8 im-I 5 030 6 0.3] 0.69 6 0 .646 61J axr1eNNYawoNgre cal 05-4 axeenrrlwerin exs.Y.vwe w7. 1,z,1 2.J1 O.a] 4] 16.3 1„1, 2.13 0.6] - 16.3 OP-8 1,2.3,1,5.E J.1J O.B5 0. 4p.4 1 zf.l ail T. MINIMIUM JPTH OF IRRIGATION DITCH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 2. COORDINA WITH LOCAL LANDOWNERS BEFORE CONSTINU TON OF IRRIGATION DITCH. PnF dGe r • - .. a1RDATM pPw WANT.`ovall 1.15 R. lye. - 0.0 Cie. mod. am R con. • XN FT. %0FE µIA 4WE. 0.5oi SWALE A IRRIGATION DITCH a. 3 THESE ROPOSED IMPROVELIENTS HAYS BEEN MPRO D BY THE FOLLOWNC AFFECTED AYellyal V: LVYDOWXIX Oak APPROVED: kXDOTIN®f Mk APPRO ED: TANDarxeR Oak APPROVED: LINDDENNR Oab APPROVED: - n _. y n n anar #s a$NN p UO UN ME RiUCYURE E 1 3i B 4 9 737-008 DPAwwc x0. 3 - 16 12 SECTION A -A PLAN VIEW AREA INLET MWM Ey I SECTION RI-S eEmale / MIACNNA NmEa (1) At Obi Ii IIW L MMN/m OW W M AW1x2 meY ' arWw .if CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIWUP EIF MI&• T AAl RWIW 9WfR"M sm[ CEilYR01 pep am ON N.2YS) BIIO" BASSET" 1M1IW 0 win IN yW 10 B 2-10 a DAM 12 m-IW NO s0-r0 275 a-b 6 12 2-w A QAS To IW 1215 Bo-ro •m 2s-m 215 IB 2-10 IB CASS 26 AND YW 'A ro lm 2en5D Bm 21 2_10 8 }tlm'IaAA PINnOC s0E M NNT m N T To M WS 901L R sIOFs LQ1N ro W UFiR 1NM1 as [aFIB.M. j}MT a e AT I aw 4LFF$ W 0. TMfS NE SI GRADATION FOR FILTER MATERIAL IV ' T PASpIO 9MIlpF IF91 SEWS Xil Ta<, (OJtl1WgE,2 SNB 9E618t.B1 °�mm1 SLt£ m2 (2A91m M) 38111W Yout) r T _ •o-w - Bp• .... m-m 3/117 100 - P G-Im o-m ON 4111 w AL30 - pm 2-10 PDB o-2 o-T An en (2) Mi w..wo w.n xu «.w 1a r.nrys ♦on 1 xenani Sp,t" we 4p wxn bh ., Pe..Y rrY W > S.ee for Fat- wi CusaH `' rw. _ ,_n . ""=wt . ee/s3 bl...Yw.4 •+i!,NALw-v v-ei utYm �F. Yual. UN 1Nt Sprtw swear AN sway i ARDA 0A ..m 1, 1 ki 15.6 iI 4m 2P tog 1ieYu"t Wa. Zvi Poe QD x.n n � weri ,~ e: mS xo pNineei obi Re owi IntYMSN m W.e W Re Ytl IA1.u. su L0011`Os.11DY Mr lath. CAY LOW P1 RAW i tow MS nH a a/.26Y sin 2 N r.aY won 12 MA1 1e M], MCWSN p.•.. tl. a tern rla'irei P.t pe�iwo. xrlen a.• Aee L IYefite i mt�Hi n Minn a Y<h AS LS tell, o `i 0 Re hy1 ::� "e r loarmo 16 Pali n Sw Straw l,tl Noting e1IR 1i1 iva� Cwe 2! w<w .n, nntll.w... any si . w soar (LAY WAS (Ve 111 N ,R WAY° ,.vamc« Inner), and �wt�n.:t ADD i"4tO N HIM, DR. AWA DAM, �I S«d Me Re Did Ani Wi eenyYe Aii WARM 12 rb - fw1 N eO.nC Y<I e•mfny�nee- 01MVEnrP Lnw1n IEa Y rl, til,n ml,tlly«e bM.1 a MEManin e_emtll"Aw M. W_wwnh.,.. .1a ._ �tl.N =i ro1.erWw.«1.m�« W 4, .N..1_ S: T 1r";; OMWi eNnYMw�mb «x 1 n 1 «. n1_ {4� wan ww.pwo,bi, on ewe, .i is to In mpi...w we w. rMx If wi xen x W,..« and r,mpaawp igi - Cno DAZEGRATTESS vany, AM n°" caxsraucnoN sEalrtxcE roe -pwm own yff No NO w Of /aw m NAwss1 SsA-hw ry n •tt� W1 0 - WeB Mn .n, x 11 WWew�q eeneee, W Any, w ..ne1 An ewomign n'�1It . nn AMR xdN. paa.a dMi p1.um en eond as IMMi.gtMlb, n w.ir wp. away oe.e�.w.an"ea (inndR) immM r 15 ay 1 an..n r o im in IM OM Mi if "At.• n n ., wnpawn. mwrnn m..y, e. Mi n..n w i 15 N .0 Mobiri a n try Ir Sol. i gy InI meoA ae.n.ne ni AWI be 10 moon a man in math. ly UMMAntinno a even ,MM ."i mwaima IN =,w'e ":,rAM iw.w YEAR lm 20m Mdnl MIAIMIJIJIAISIOIMI.DIJIF OR2a0T wUBWE - "No 01051041 CONma SOX Rw Mg Perlmety BOnW AEEnbna Bmise winjo w NemMe Sol, sa-t Other NNNFALL BmiION CgITROL STRUCNRAt: seOYnant Trp/tipeF Inlet "tars Straw Guni Set r BarriersSand Bow Braw sW Prgvatkn (kNotiourruffle Np1 donee a POA1y (SMMkn YEADETA11R: Permanent SMW PM1My Se« RmUq SON ON Loot/ todflatkon e/NV4/BlOnlute other other —7 STRUCTMES: WsrA Br MA TMNFY nY ROETAV N/ LCIWG C10111B OR DAIS 4/dMITIEO AFPROHD BY CITY OF Fp GGUWs CN mGY i16 '7 .e -rLEE �y Y.w�7eT- RE L.:iw..r:-�. CAAi I ilano 0® ew BDOWG gAmAYs . ImaxSIOMs /2E aR-m-ar a BNp DCURB FACE ASSEMBLY, Piece Enure Ae•xMr "two p0WM2 COW SECTION A -A TYPE R_ CURB INLET PM91E0 WnCC at AgUSIYFNr SIWS CHOUND wWTEO X14oE STRAW BALES STAKED Ir u[a i11D STAKES xr YRIL FIAT ssa ra 9ASW m uw PWITHER PER BHE a C mP AsrY c-. a MINE L -F WE-FORYm vuSOt CASNT POINT A MUST BE HIGHER THAN. A PgNT B A VMS. WWBS 12' OC. A4 NFdm 5 YAL nown an C-a2e Y.WYPF ACTOM sa wE SECTION A A 1r-FOMIm Aww WAs11c cAs1Er . lri r I I 1ma�PE } CAaryl2- CwOZR BABE am r iWL • l, oRWr BA4Ero - LONE p1 W90E OF YYYW WMCE BRE 1NIIF r MMWwE Is u34 J FTEr. ra AS uAMNMf 4IAu BE As Fau4Y' SECMN °FINE HAW I. Cg1CFN1RL WE111f U. HA M RAW M.WMLYf PLAN VIEW POPE SZE OIAYEIIB COMPACTED l Iar TO W w BADKFBL q YNa our w- rr 1-� For 1ML _F PROFILE VIEW PowaD WWAT wEWr YYWpE MY GENERAL NOTES: 1. INSPECT, REPNR, AND REPUCE. IF NECESSA AT BASE THE FILTERS AFTER EACH STORM VENT. 2 ALL BALES MUST BE REkUCED TER 12 SHALLOW MANHOLE MONTHS UNLESS MPROVAL IS ANTED BY �—gT DIE ENGINEERING OINSigi Fqe USE. (ai YNetrom Wer NEWWE NCESED MOST M�pLF+� S90 W 1-��� ~Z] OE-t i e 0 CONCRETE STORM DRAIN BEDDING boononnii W -- CALL UTILITY NOTMATION Z CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 g ¢ GA 534-6700 � g 3 S MYe W ADV.WO• oWe MWN060xw VAM 2 PaR 1N rwemaLw f, O O �q pi O O O 0 w City of Fort Collin, Colorado Gr o- iLIJI '6 O'I'fIATY PLAN APPROVAL i ca APPROVED: 04eolar o2 DW ¢ N ¢ 'A 6 CHECKED BY: 6 6 O Z Z LL LL ¢ IFt A rerte W BBery Dew CHECKED BY. 9tormwAGr UWiE) DeG FNO.ECi x0. 737 -008 CHECKED BY: Pert a bwwUw AG DPAWXO W. CHECKED BY: Dote 4 - 16 i'Ifilaill'i